They’re around fifty years old and in fine voice here. I love love love these medleys:
The Bird of Time
Today I was planning to finish and post a long essay that was about half done. Really, I was.
What happened? I decided to call my cell phone company and ask a few questions about changing my service and perhaps getting a new phone. After all, they keep sending me emails saying “Get a new phone – for free!”
That call consumed about two hours. Now I feel quite wrung out, and quite happy to keep my old plan, which was grandfathered in from about the time of the Renaissance. I did learn a lot more than I knew before about current cell phone twistings and turnings, which have become far more Byzantine than when I last checked.
I’m writing about this because modern life seems increasingly filled with these contradictions. Save money! Get your new whatever! And hours and hours later you’re more confused than ever, after having researched and researched and researched. That appears to go for most purchases.
When I went to California for my eye surgery and got my flight reservations, the website kept breaking down right at the end of the transaction. Then, when I tried to call on the phone, they said there was a two-hour wait. But hey, you can do it by text! So I tried that, and it involved a two-and-a-half hour wait.
Convenience has somehow led to inconvenience for so many things.
Remember one-a-day vitamins? They used to be these tiny little pills that contained just the RDA for the basic vitamins, and I took them for years and years and years. Perhaps I don’t need them – I do eat my fruits and veggies and all that stuff – but I figure I’ll just continue. But over the years, vitamins have grown huge both physically and in terms of what they contain, horse pills with mega-this and mega-that and somewhat-mega-prices as well. Try finding a regular old vitamin these days.
I used to get mine at Walgreen’s and about a year ago they stopped making them. They came in a smallish bottle with a year’s supply, 365 petite easy-to-swallow pills for something like $8.99. Recently I spent about six hours online, spread over several days, looking for a substitute. Every search I could think of led me to only one rather expensive selection that wasn’t quite what I wanted, plus a ream of the expensive aforementioned mega-pills.
I gave up and ordered some gummy vitamins, which were more basic in their ingredients although not the least bit cheap. But when I received them and chewed the first one, I almost spit it out. Awful! Apparently even sugar can’t disguise the bitterness of vitamins.
And then, for no apparent reason, the next time I went on Amazon, the algorithm – which had stubbornly defied me previously in my quest – gave me a suggestion for exactly (or nearly exactly) what I’d been looking for in vain all that time. I bought a bottle. The pills look like my old buddies from Walgreen’s, and have a similar formula. They’re a bit more expensive, but what isn’t?
Go figure. At least I have them now.
Oh, and the title of this post? It’s from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:
Come, fill the Cup, and in the fire of Spring
Your Winter garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To flutter—and the Bird is on the Wing.Whether at Naishapur or Babylon,
Whether the Cup with sweet or bitter run,
The Wine of Life keeps oozing drop by drop,
The Leaves of Life keep falling one by one.
The latest language lesson from the teaching profession
Leaked documents from an assembly convened this week by the nation’s largest teachers union allege to show the National Education Association (NEA) is debating a proposal to begin pushing the use of “LGBTQIA+ inclusive” language, like “birthing parent” instead of “mother” and “non-birthing parent” instead of “father,” in formal language used by state and local educational entities.
“NEA will inform states and locals of the following sample language that may be put in contracts that is LGBTQIA+ inclusive,” an alleged NEA proposal for a resolution titled NBI 63 reads. “’Parental leave’ instead of ‘maternity leave,’ ‘parent’ instead of ‘mother’ or ‘father,’ ‘birthing parent’ instead of ‘mother,’ and ‘non-birthing parent’ instead of ‘father,’” the proposal, which asks for $5,000 to be implemented, points out.
“Mother” and “father” are two of the oldest words in every language, the most basic words of all and also the ones that most children learn first. And whatever happened to good old classics like Heather Has Two Mommies or the equivalent for two daddies? Well, trans parenting is more complicated, but I’m sure it can be worked out without torturing the language.
The terms “birthing parent” and “non-birthing parent” generate another huge problem that I haven’t seen discussed in several articles I read about this issue. It seems obvious to me that these terms completely ignore adoption, something that affects far more people than trans parenting issues do. They conjure up the older terms “birth mother” and “birth father” for the biological versus adoptive parents.
The left is deeply intent on changing language, which they believe is a big step towards changing perceptions and ideas and polities. We’ve seen it happen in many arenas, particularly immigration. When was the last time you heard the term “illegal aliens” used even by the right?
Perhaps we should replace the word “teacher” with the term “propagandist”?
Boris Johnson’s slow exit
Was it really the scandals that brought Boris Johnson down? Or was it the disappointment over his weakness as a leader and his failure to deliver much of anything beyond Brexit that would differentiate him sharply from Labour?
I think the latter, and so does Melanie Phillips, who certainly knows more about it than I do:
Boris Johnson’s decision to quit as prime minister of the United Kingdom followed unprecedented scenes in the British parliament this week, as he clung on to power despite the resignation of more than 50 of his ministers in an attempt to force him out.
The immediate cause of the revolt was a series of last straws over his perceived personal dishonesty—first by breaking his own COVID laws and, most recently, lying about his promotion of a “sex-pest” Member of Parliament.
The deeper issue was a profound disillusionment among those who had voted him into power for delivering Brexit. These constitutents concluded that he had failed to use Britain’s newly recovered independence to free up the country’s capacity for progress and prosperity.
Nor was he resisting the culture war being waged upon core values, particularly the loss of control over illegal immigration and the trashing of Britain’s history and identity.
He’s quitting as head of the Conservative (Tory) party, but he says he’s staying till October as Prime Minister. Phillips thinks he might be persuaded to shorten that timetable to avoid being a protracted lame duck. There certainly is no dearth of party members calling for him to step down much more quickly.
I don’t agree with a good deal of the rest of Phillips’ piece, which is a comparison of Trump, Netanyahu, and Johnson, but I do agree that the problem with Johnson and the reason he’s being forced out goes much deeper than the scandals.
Open thread 7/7/22
On social media and change: have you seen either of these?
I haven’t watched this, but it looks extremely interesting:
And I’ve only watched the first five minutes of this one, but I plan to watch the rest:
Is Boris Johnson finally on the way out?
It looks grim for him, but who knows? The rodents are deserting what looks to be a sinking ship, though:
It is looking increasingly unlikely Johnson can withstand this onslaught of resignations, prompted by yet another scandal. This latest scandal involves the Conservative deputy chief whip, Chris Pincher, who was forced to resign last week amid allegations he got drunk at a private club and groped two men. That might have been the end of it, but the debacle resurfaced other allegations of sexual misconduct against Pincher, including one from 2019, when Pincher served in the foreign office…officials confirmed that Johnson was, in fact, aware of some of the allegations against Pincher.
Johnson apologized Tuesday for appointing Pincher, saying it was a “mistake,” in hindsight, to name him deputy chief whip. But it looks to have been too little too late. On Tuesday evening, two of Johnson’s top senior officials, finance minister Rishi Sunak and health secretary Sajid Javid, both resigned from the cabinet, calling Johnson’s integrity into question. Their move set off the slew of resignations happening now — more than 35 as of Wednesday, with possibly more to come.
Both Javid and Sunak are major figures in the Conservative Party who may have their own designs on leadership, so their departures were already going to be hard to overcome. Johnson, of course, replaced those ministers. But British media is reporting that some of Johnson’s top cabinet officials are currently mobilizing to convince the prime minister that it’s time to go…
“Partygate” is largely what brought Johnson to this point. Last year, allegations started emerging of Downing Street officials hosting boozy, in-person parties when England was under very strict lockdown rules. Johnson initially denied any knowledge of the parties, but more photos and stories started trickling out, and “Partygate” refused to go away. Juicy details aside, the scandal is fairly straightforward: The people in charge of making and enforcing Covid-19 rules were themselves breaking them.
Johnson survived a no-confidence vote in June, which apparently protects him from another until a year has passed since the earlier one. That’s why his own party is now trying to talk him into voluntarily resigning.
Johnson got elected in order to guide Brexit, and after that I think he outlived his usefulness. COVID was a disaster. He also has always been a wild and crazy guy, and so these scandals shouldn’t have been the least bit surprising or unexpected. He’s become an albatross around the neck of his party, but he’s a stubborn guy who may want to hold on to power past his pull date.
On the Highland Park shooter and red flag laws
The Highland Park shooter was waving red flags with both hands and both feet. And yet Illinois red flag laws didn’t stop him from purchasing not just one gun but many.
This is his history – or at least a portion of it [emphasis mine]:
On Tuesday, Lake County authorities revealed that Crimo had two encounters with local police in 2019, before he legally obtained his weapons.
The first call, in April 2019, was a report that he had attempted suicide.
Then, in September 2019, a family member called Highland Park police to report that Crimo “said he was going to kill everyone” and that he had a collection of knives, Sgt. Christopher Covelli of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office said at a press conference Tuesday.
Highland Park police confiscated 16 knives, a dagger and a sword from Crimo’s home – but ultimately did not arrest Crimo, Covelli said, in part because none of his family were willing to sign complaints.
Afterward, Highland Park police notified Illinois State Police of the incident in a “clear and present danger” report.
But because Crimo did not then have a FOID card – a firearm owner’s identification card that is issued by Illinois State Police and required for gun ownership – nor an application to deny, the state police said, their “involvement with the matter was concluded.”
Three months later, Crimo, then 19, applied for a FOID card. His application was sponsored by his father, and was approved by state police in January 2020.
Later that year, Crimo passed three background checks to purchase guns, authorities said. He passed a fourth check on Sept. 20, 2021, his 21st birthday.
In a second statement released late Tuesday, Illinois State Police addressed questions about why the “clear and present danger” report did not prevent Crimo from obtaining a FOID card just four months later.
“The report indicates that when police went to the home and asked the individual if he felt like harming himself or others, he responded no,” the agency said. “No one, including family, was willing to move forward on a complaint nor did they subsequently provide information on threats or mental health that would have allowed law enforcement to take additional action.”
Additionally, Crimo’s father claimed the knives were his, and that they were being stored in his son’s closet “for safekeeping,” police said. Highland Park police returned the knives to Crimo’s father later that afternoon.
This is another example of why strict gun laws won’t prevent these things from happening at least sometimes. Illinois is a blue state with a red flag law that failed here. I’ve highlighted the parts about the father and the family because I think they show a pattern, and the pattern is either denial or excuses or misplaced compassion or some combination of the three.
And yet I think parents of troubled youths are in a dreadful bind. What to do? Sometimes the kid has had tons of therapy and it hasn’t helped (I have no idea what the therapy history of this perp was, however). Therapy isn’t a cureall. Sometimes parents are afraid if they institute a tough-love regimen their son or daughter will get even worse, and they therefore think it’s best to keep that person home.
Remember the case of the family of John Hinckley, the young man who almost succeeded in killing Ronald Reagan in order to impress Jodie Foster? I certainly do:
‘The strength drained from the sonorous voice of John W. Hinckley Sr. as he described ”the greatest mistake of my life,” the March 7, 1981, meeting at the Denver airport when he told his ”dazed, wiped out” son he could not come home again.
Weeping silently, he buried his face in a handkerchief when he had finished his testimony as the eighth witness called in support of his son’s defense, which is that he is not guilty because he was insane…
Mr. Hinckley’s wife, JoAnn, who had been bent over, sobbing into a tissue, was escorted from the spectator section of the courtroom…
According to his father’s testimony, it was at about 4:30 A.M. on March 6, 1981 – which, unknown to him, was just hours after his son had left the letter under Miss Foster’s door – that he received an ”incoherent” and ”frantic” telephone call from him in which he said he was broke, hungry and sleepless in New York and wanted to come home.
That call led to the rupture of the long-strained relationship between the self-made oil entrepreneur and the self-described ”prodigal” son, whose unwillingness to finish college or to support himself and increasingly erratic behavior had, the father said, caused ”a great deal of discord in our home.”
The father said he met his son at the Denver airport on March 7, after reluctantly sending him money to fly to Denver from New York. While driving alone from the family home in Evergreen, Colo., to the airport, Mr. Hinckley said, ”I prayed that we were doing the right thing.” . He said a psychiatrist had told him and his wife to tell their son to fend for himself, and had advised, ”Send him $100 and wish him good luck.”
At the airport, he said, ”We sat down and I told him how disappointed we were in him, that he had let us down and he had not followed the plan we had all agreed on” for him to support himself. The plan had been devised by Dr. John J. Hopper Jr., the psychiatrist. Told Son Not to Come Back
Mr. Hinckley said he gave his son ”a couple of hundred dollars,” took him to the son’s old car parked near the airport, put some antifreeze in the leaky radiator, and told him that he could not come ”back to the house again.” As his wife sobbed quietly in her seat in the front row of the packed spectator section, Mr. Hinckley continued:
”I suggested that he go to the Y.M.C.A., and he said he did not want to do that. I said, ‘Okay, you’re on your own. Do whatever you want to.’
Please read the whole thing.
It’s not that the Highland Park shooter had much in common with Hinckley except some sort of obvious mental disturbance that caused family problems. In both cases a father was present and involved in dealing with his son, although the way each chose to treat that son was very different. It didn’t matter in the end; both sons were bent on violence and committed it.
In the case of the Highland Park shooter’s father it seems as though the father’s cooperation, or the cooperation of some family member, was necessary in order for the red flag laws of Illinois to have flagged the son and stopped him from the legal purchase of a gun. Is that a flaw in the law? If Crimo the younger seemed coherent at the time the police came, and everyone declined to escalate matters further, should a red flag law have been activated anyway? And if so, for how long?
In other words, how to draft a red flag law which protects the innocent but stops the potentially dangerous from obtaining weapons? That is far from easy and in my opinion it’s probably impossible to do perfectly. And if course, if a person is determined to get a weapon, there is always the illegal route.
Open thread 7/6/22
In the 90s, they were still allowed to make fun of wokeness
The Highland Park July 4th shooter
There’s really little to say except RIP to the victims – and to note that the alleged perp seems obviously nihilistic and perhaps deranged. One look at his photos tells you that. I don’t usually say that sort of thing. But facial tattoos of that type are a really bad sign.
He seems to have somewhat checkered political views, including some indications he was a Trump supporter. But as with so many mass shooting perps these days, his politics seem to have been as disordered as almost everything else about him. He was obsessed with murder and death, and apparently he finally acted that out.
For those who espouse the “fatherlessness” theory of perps like this (I’ve discussed the weakness and lack of evidence for that here), it does not seem to be the case for this guy either, who is reported to have been living with his father and uncle.
Remember Ukraine?
I’ve avoided making predictions about the endgame of the war in Ukraine, but here’s an article that discusses the possibilities:
At the time of this writing, it is not yet clear what the outcome will be. His first strategy having failed, he is experimenting with escalation of force, using more artillery and larger numbers of troops, but still not going for the full-scale destruction of urban areas with carpet bombing such as that used in Grozny and more recently in Aleppo during his Syrian intervention. Casualties would be much higher if that were the case. It is also the case that the “Finnish model” that ultimately emerged was only resorted to after an extended period of conventional warfare against Finnish forces, one that gradually pushed the Finnish back, but at a very high cost. The Finnish model was not a first choice for Stalin, but it was an acceptable one. If it was acceptable for Stalin, it is not unreasonable that it might be acceptable for his spiritual protégé, if it came to that.
The Chechen model basically writes off any expectation of willing cooperation from the conquered population, and relies on sheer terror to maintain control of the area. Putin is still acting in hopes that the bulk of the Ukrainian population can be convinced to at least accept the rule of a Moscow-appointed puppet regime, while gradually coming to accept that state of affairs as the new normal for Ukraine. After all, the Ukrainians had accepted Soviet rule with at least the same degree of compliance between 1920 and 1990, and the Belarusians accept essentially the same outcome for themselves today, so this hope does not seem entirely unreasonable to Putin. Let us call such an outcome the Belarusian model. However, it seems likely that outcomes will fall short of anything resembling a Belarusian outcome.
There’s much much more at the link. The author has no firm answer, either, but he’s pretty good at asking the right questions and analyzing the prospects.